On Thu, 28 Aug 2025, 01:22 Connor Wilkins, <connor.wilk...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/25 10:36 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > > On 8/27/25 10:29 AM, Zachary Santer wrote: > >> Bash already provides one. You're just leaving it undocumented so > >> you're more free to get rid of it in the future? > > I'm leaving it undocumented to discourage its use, yes. One thing I've > > discovered is that you can never remove a feature (e.g. $[expr]). > >> Did it originate in > >> another shell? > > No. > > I'm of the opinion that if there is a supported feature with no plans for > deprecation > or removal, it should be documented. Even if it's not widely used, it's > still supported > with (as you said) no plans for removal. I would go much further: • if it's not deprecated, it should be documented; • if it IS deprecated, THAT should be documented. The current situation is that we have "undocumented features" that sometimes later get recategorised as "bugs" and immediately removed without advance notice (as far as ordinary users are concerned; they don't know that README & CHANGES even exist) Everything should be documented BEFORE it's changed, in the man & info pages because that's the only places where ordinary users can readily read it. If something is not documented, don't remove it until after it has been documented for long enough for the world to respond. -Martin
